Which car does the TC use?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I feel strongly that for many high density urban routes that articulated buses are a superior transit vehicle to LRT. The present LRT vehicles used in the Twin Cities are inadequate for high density routes due to their design. They are uncomfortable except for short distances and lack the riding qualities of the PCC Car designed in the 1930's. The LRT vehicles used in Pittsburgh and Toronto are much better vehicles than are the LRT's used in the Twin Cities. The LRT in the Twin Cities vehicles seem to be more concerned about accommodating bicycles than people. The same poor design is seen in the Northstar Commuter Rail. High capacity seating seems to be an afterthought for both LRT operations and Northstar.
If they were less rigid, perhaps they would consider converting the bus routes with the most passengers to streetcars.
schlimmDoing the math and assuming the buses average out to 40 passengers per run, the #11/28 line carries (rough estimate) 5120 passengers per day; the #72 carries 3280. Pretty clearly these routes are not good candidates for streetcars, even if the passenger count were 50% higher. But during the rush hours, perhaps the use of the higher capacity articulated buses should be considered, along with closer headways in the peak period?
Schlimm,
You will be happy to learn that have no influence with New Jersey Transit. I have never seen any suggestion that my transit agency is considering streetcars for any route and I do not expect to.
I would be happy to see your suggestion accepted and longer articulated buses used on these routes during the rush hour. That would help a lot. But I doubt it will happen because NJT is using all of its articulated buses on routes where the demand is even greater such as the No. 1 between Newark and Jersey City.
Apart from the issue of streetcars, I think that at least here in New Jersey our transit agency is extremely rigid and bureaucratic and finds any change at all to be extremely difficult. A case in point would be the decision before hurricane Sandy to leave rail equipment in a swamp despite the weather reports available to anyone because there was no history of problems there.
John
MidlandMikeRegarding labor costs, a multi car trolley must either have extra crew to collect fares, or have ticket machines and compliance personnel, plus track and wire maintainers.
Mike,
Fare compliance is part of a larger issue of security. It is not at all clear to me that bus operators were able to enforce fare compliance from farebeaters. I have seenmany of them enter through the back door with the bus driver unable to do anything about it. All transit systems need security and security officers regardless of the type of vehicle used.
New Jersey Transit is focused on providing a safe environment for its bus drivers and installing glass shields on buses to protect them although some doubt that the shields will help much. In 2011 there was a particularly brutal attack in Newark: A bus driver was stabbed 7 times.
Here is an article with a discussion of driver safety:
http://www.masstransitmag.com/news/10450859/pa-bus-driver-shields-spreading-but-not-in-philadelphia
JohnWR's local buslines for consideration: "New Jersey Transiit's 11/28 line runs from Market Street, Newark via Washington and Broad Streets and then Bloomfield Avenue to Montclair where route 28 branches off to go to Montclair State University and then to Willowbrook Mall. Route 11 leaves Bloomfield Avenue at Route 23 also ending at Willowbrook Mall. Each day there are 74 buses in each direction. Service is between 6 am and midnight.
NJT's 72 line (which I take) begins at Newark Penn Station running on Raymond Boulevard to Washington Street where it follows an identical route to the 11/28 up to Broad Street where it turns right and continues on to Paterson. here are 41 buses each way from 6 am to midnight (not 74 as I originally posted in error),
On average the 11/28 line has a bus about every 15 minutes and during rush hours buses are about 5 to 7 minutes apart. The 72 line averages a bus every 26 minutes and during rush hours buses are 20 minutes apart." I believe he also said they both use NJT's 40' buses, which seat 40.
Doing the math and assuming the buses average out to 40 passengers per run, the #11/28 line carries (rough estimate) 5120 passengers per day; the #72 carries 3280. Pretty clearly these routes are not good candidates for streetcars, even if the passenger count were 50% higher. But during the rush hours, perhaps the use of the higher capacity articulated buses should be considered, along with closer headways in the peak period?
Erik,
Thanks for the information about a gas turbine with a recuperator.
And yes, I think the cost of labor to operate the vehicles is an important issue and the ability to use a train of cars is important. Almost all of New Jersey Transit's light rail lines use 2 car trainsets at a minimum and it the traffic demands it two trainsets will be hooked together.
Like others you mention I too have suggested streetcars belong on high density lines. I used lines I am familiar with as an example and certainly my rider's perspective may not be sufficient to conclude streetcars would be a good choice for them. But that does not negate my argument that we should fit the transit vehicle to the route. And I think we need to consider labor costs. Do we want to have a policy of one operator per vehicle or do we want to have the option of one operator for multiple vehciles?
schlimm The San Diego trolley's Siemens S 70's being delivered seat 60, with much standing room (commuter capacity = 102). . Price: $4.3 mil. per car. I have no idea how much a bus costs, but $4.3 mil. plus the cost of building trackage and overhead wire sounds like a pretty hefty investment on bus lines that as JohnWR describes them sound like fairly low-density routes. Streetcars are wonderful, but belong on higher-density lines, as Dave Klepper and others have suggested. Addendum: "Based on 2011 values in the US, the purchase cost of a regular 40 ft bus is $280,000 to $300,000 compared to a hybrid bus that is between $450,000 and $550,000." http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/publications/_documents/t2summaries/hybrid_transit_bus_tech_brief1.pdf
The San Diego trolley's Siemens S 70's being delivered seat 60, with much standing room (commuter capacity = 102). . Price: $4.3 mil. per car. I have no idea how much a bus costs, but $4.3 mil. plus the cost of building trackage and overhead wire sounds like a pretty hefty investment on bus lines that as JohnWR describes them sound like fairly low-density routes. Streetcars are wonderful, but belong on higher-density lines, as Dave Klepper and others have suggested.
Addendum:
"Based on 2011 values in the US, the purchase cost of a regular 40 ft bus is $280,000 to $300,000 compared to a hybrid bus that is between $450,000 and $550,000."
http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/publications/_documents/t2summaries/hybrid_transit_bus_tech_brief1.pdf
If trolleys cost aprox. 10x the cost per seat of a bus, it hardly seems like a contest. Trolleys may last longer, but not 10x longer. Regarding labor costs, a multi car trolley must either have extra crew to collect fares, or have ticket machines and compliance personnel, plus track and wire maintainers.
erikemBuses pretty much require some sort of hydrocarbon fuel (petroleum or natural gas), with alcohols and bio-diesel as an option. Electricity can be generated from a wide variety of sources besides hydrocarbons, with coal, nuclear, hydro and the new-fangled renewables.
Trolley busses do use electricity (and I am sure you know this), accelerate faster, potentially providing more capacity. They are cheaper than putting in tracks, only needing the wires, and can operate in more than one lane on the same set of wires placed in the middle of two lanes. They also are much easier to use in tunnels. But they lack MU capability, and turn intersections into masses of wires. So, they probably fit in above diesel busses, and below streetcars.
To each route the best vehicle!
John,
I think streak was referring to gas turbines with a recuperator - a device that uses the heat from the exhaust gases to preheat the air from the compressor prior to admission to the combustion chambers. An even more effective use of the exhaust gas heat is a combined cycle plant, where 60% of the energy from natural gas can be converted to electricity. The only practical mobile version of a combined cycle plant would be a ship's propulsion system.
Buses pretty much require some sort of hydrocarbon fuel (petroleum or natural gas), with alcohols and bio-diesel as an option. Electricity can be generated from a wide variety of sources besides hydrocarbons, with coal, nuclear, hydro and the new-fangled renewables.
One other aspect of bus vs streetcar is labor. The North County Transit District cited labor being the largest single cost of running a bus transit system as the reason for investing in the DMU Sprinter line. A DMU or MU'ed LRV can carry several times the number of passengers as a bus. Conversely, this implies that the classic single car streetcar doesn't make much sense.
- Erik
NorthWestThe best system for each route.
NorthWest,
Your comment took the words right out of my mouth. All transit routes are not the same. We should fit the vehicles to the routes and transit operators are beginning to see that.
Using your link I found another which I think is helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-four_(public_transport)
Falcon,
I'm responding to you because several others have and think highly of your analysis.
First, my main point is that buses require one operator per vehicle while streetcars do not. One operator per vehicle maximizes the number of people required to operate a transit system and adds the maximum number of management officials to oversee that maximum number of operators. Given the high costs of labor which, in addition to wages and salary included fringe benefits such as health insurance for whole families, social security and medicare taxes, pensions and other things is is really a good idea to commit a transit system to maximizing these costs? Certainly streetcars have a higher initial cost but because they can be connected in trains with one operator for a train of 2 or 3 cars they offer the potential for reducing labor costs.
I appreciate the fact that you are not familiar with New Jersey Transit, the system I personally happen to use and I don't expect you or anyone to be familiar with it. I refer to it because I need to post about things I have experience with. Actually the 11/28 bus routes operate with an average headway of about 15 minutes but some headways are as short as 5 or 6 minutes and others are longer depending upon the time of day. The 72 route has a headway of 20 to 30 minutes during weekdays with an average of 26 minutes.
The fact that people on NJT buses often must stand is not a problem. The fact that buses sometimes pass stops because they are too full to pick up more people is. The city of Newark, New Jersey happens to have a high crime wait and to be waiting on the curb of a city street can often be unsafe. You point out that NJT could shorten headways or use larger buses to address this problem. The fact of the matter is that NJT does not do either of those things. I doubt very much that anyone at NJT believes leaving people standing at city bus stops while buses pass them by is "adequate." That suggests a dismissive attitude about passenger safety. Rather, I think transit managers do the best they can with the number of busses they have.
I am not at all family with Twin Cities by Trolley. I did go to Amazon and look up reviews of the book. From what I can see it is the history of the trolley system in Minneapolis and St. Paul, a history which ended in 1950. I like history and I'm sure it is fascinating. What I don't see is that it is about American transit systems today, especially the problem of dealing with labor costs which are much larger than they were in 1950.
You suggest that for the routes in my example buses really make more sense than streetcars would and those who express opinions agree with you. You make a very good point. I write about these routes because I try to write about things I know about but the fact that I know more about these routes than I know about others in and of itself does not make them good candidates for streetcar lines. But I do ask if you believe that buses with labor costs of one operator per vehicle are necessarily the best choice for all transit lines which run in the streets? I suggest that streetcars may be a better choice for some lines.
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis of a topic I think is important.
blue streak 1 GE makes a recupertative electric generator system that can recover almost 50% of total energy content of natural gas.
Streak,
This is totally new to me, something I never even thought of before your post. With Google I found GE CL.AIR, a system which captures, recompresses and reburns exhaust gases (methane) leaving only carbon dioxide and water. Is that what you refer to? What is unclear to me is the link to an electric generator. Of course the system could be used to provide power for a generator but that seems to be not necessary. Or maybe it is not small enough to put in an individual vehicle but would be used to power a generating system which then could provide power to transit vehicles. I'm still a little confused here.
If you include PATH, NJT's territory has electrified commuter rail, diesel commuter rail, rapid transit (PATH), Light Rail (Hudson-Bergan County, Newari-Bloomfield, River-Line Camden-Trenton-Diesel, and bus. You could count this as six if you wanted to. And add a seventh, ferry boats on the Hudson River. Then there are taxicabs, making an eighth.
Maybe a return to an "all four" system is best, perhaps adding a fifth in Light Rail between streetcars and rapid transit. The best system for each route.
As much as I would lok forward to greater NJT use of rail transit, I must agree with FALCON on this case. And doubly so because there are more pressing needs for NJT capital funds.
FALCON48: Your analysis seems very thorough. The telling piece is the use on the routes in question of 40' buses, which have 42 seats versus 59 on NJT's articulated buses.
In response to JohnWR's latest note, let me state right off the bat that I'm not familiar with NJT's bus operations in the Newark area. However, based on the information in the note, I have to question whether any of the routes he mentions are candidates for rail service, whether "streetcar" or LRT.
As I understand his note, these routes operate on 15 minute headways. They use standard, 40 foot busses, not the larger articulateds on the market (which apparently NJT has, but chooses to use on other routes). Sometimes, there are standees on the busses, and somethimes a bus has too many passengers to make a pickup. The latter conditions occur from time to time on any bus line with decent patronage (as opposed to bus lines that normally run nearly empty).
A 15 minute headway with standard busses isn't very impressive. The easy measures NJT could take to increase capacity, without a huge investment in rail infrastructure, would be to shorten the headways and/or use larger busses. The fact that NJT has apparently not chosen to take either of these measures suggests that they regard the existing capacity as adequate.
In one of my earlier notes, I mentioned the Diers/Isaacs book on the Twin Cities streetcar system ("Twin Cities by Trolley"). This book has information on the headways on the various TCRT streetcar routes, and it's interesting to compare these with the Newark headways John mentions. The principal TCRT routes appear to have had service frequencies of 10-15 minutes off peak and 3-5 minutes peak.
The Washington conduit system was well maintained, and the one line that was thought to be a maintenance problem, Rossllyn - Benning, had already been abandoned. And when they dug up some of the tracks for extensive road regrading, they found the conduit in much better condition than expected. Even with the conduit system, the density of traffic, the condition of the track and cars, the then age of the cars, all argued for economic reasons to preserve rail operation. If this would have continued after the Metro was constructed is arguable. But streetcars or light rail or something inbetween is coming to Washington, DC, now.
John WR: The fossil fuels question has met a game changer as the natural gas boom is now here. GE makes a recupertative electric generator system that can recover almost 50% of total energy content of natural gas. That is almost double the recovery of any reciprocating motor vehicle. + the emissions of the system is much less than oil.
One has to wonder if running light rail trains with power from a center rail conduit mmight work much better now than in past years ?
Chalk said he wanted to keep streetcars, and the PCC's were well-maintained and so was the track right to the end. He may have been posturing, but I believed him and still do. Congress forced this issue.
I've read all of the comments on this thread. Here is my response:
My suggestion is really that we should reconsider streetcars for specific high volume lines where they might be a better way than the buses now used. Actually, "Reconsidering Streetcars" would have been a better title than "Bringing Back Streetcars." My title suggests a return to the old days but that is not really what I intended to say. My intention is to argue that today we should look at streetcars and buses in the context of today's needs and other realities.
After posting I did a little research about some bus lines close to me and learned that they could be examples for partial replacement with streetcars.
New Jersey Transiit's 11/28 line runs from Market Street, Newark via Washington and Broad Streets and then Bloomfield Avenue to Montclair where route 28 branches off to go to Montclair State University and then to Willowbrook Mall. Route 11 leaves Bloomfield Avenue at Route 23 also ending at Willowbrook Mall. Each day there are 74 buses in each direction. Service is between 6 am and midnight.
On average the 11/28 line has a bus about every 15 minutes and during rush hours buses are about 5 to 7 minutes apart. The 72 line averages a bus every 26 minutes and during rush hours buses are 20 minutes apart. At mid day my 72 is so full it has a few people standing and during rush hours it can be too full for the driver to stop to pick up passengers. This must also be true for the 11/28 which has an identical route except for a few blocks at the beginning. The distance to Broad Street (where the routes diverge) is about 6 miles. New Jersey Transit does not publish ridership by bus route much less part of a route. However, it is certainly possible that ridership on these routes equals or exceeds 20,000 trips per day on week days. NJT operates standard 40 foot transit buses on these routes. The section of the routes which are identical to each other could be considered as a candidate for conversion to street cars.
It has been noted that larger articulated buses are available. NJT uses them but not on the above routes. It has also been noted that streetcars can be smaller than standard sizes. I suggest that whether buses or streetcars are used for transit the size of the vehicle should be fitted to the needs of the operation that it serves.
The point is made that electric traction may well rely on fossil fuels; however those fossil fuels are simply burned at another location. My point in bringing up electricity is that it is generally a cheaper fuel than fossil fuel used for an internal combustion engine. Of course there is also maintenance of an overhead wire system or conduit system. However, perhaps this issue is not really relevant. Both buses can streetcars can be operated with either electricity or an internal combustion engine.
I am suggesting streetcars as a better way than buses to move high volumes of people. I do not suggest them for economic development of an area or as a tourist attraction. Those ideas should be evaluated on their own merits. Also, I am not suggesting that generally we should replace bus lines with streetcar lines; actually I believe the opposite. Most transit lines do not have a high enough volume to make streetcars practical and are much more suited to buses. My post is all about lines where buses are so successful that streetcars would be even more successful.
Streetcars, where they are used, have a long history in the United States of outlasting buses by decades. Today electronic technology is the state of the art. Electronic technology is in fact much more long lasting than traditional electromechanical technology. Today we have ac induction traction motors which are clearly superior to old fashioned dc traction motors. Moving parts still wear out but today electronics allows us to have fewer of them. In New Orleans streetcars have been upgraded with electronic technology and some have been running almost 90 years. I don't suggest that as the idea but their history suggests the decision to replace a streetcar is as much or more of a policy decision than a decision dictated by the fact that the vehicle is worn out.
It is true that I propose streetcars running in streets which also carry other vehicles. I don't expect they will operate any faster than current busses. The tracks could be in the right traffic land which would preserve curbside parking and at the same time not require passengers to cross a lane of traffic. And to the extent there are cars stalled on the tracks they would have to be promptly moved or towed away but that is true with buses also because of the general amount of traffic on the streets. Ideally we could use technology to enable green lights to last long enough to give them preference. In the Essex county lines I describe above this is not done now but it could be done equally well with buses as with streetcars. The only real advantage in speed I can see is if we can combine street car and bus lines with light rail lines and I will say more about that later. But I agree there would be no advantage in speed if streetcars were to replace buses on heavily used routes.
Permanence. I am talking about heavily used bus routes which are pretty permanent themselves. Streetcars are if anything more permanent than buses although nothing is forever. I think permanence is most important when a streetcar route is installed where there is not a current need but where it is hoped to attract development to an area. If a bus route is put in a similar location there is no demonstrated commitment by government to maintain it but the capital cost of a streetcar line demonstrates a commitment by government.
Personnel and trains of cars. One advantage of streetcars is that they may be hooked together in trains of cars. A train of cars takes many fewer operators than individual buses. Buses are more labor intensive. Labor costs include wages and salary, fringe benefits such as health insurance and funding pension systems. Those are very significant costs. To the extent that total employees can be reduced there can be real savings.
It has been pointed out that in an all bus system any bus driver can drive any bus which makes management's job easier that it would be with bus drivers and streetcar operators whose positions are not interchangeable. No doubt this is true; however it also reveals a lack of faith in managers to manage a transportation system. Since there are cities with both buses and streetcars the problem seems to be surmountable.
I think I have responded to all of the points mentioned above. I will later respond to the points mentioned below.
Many streetcar routes in Manhattan and on Capital Transit were equipped with conduit pickup, which has a lot more maintenance issues than overhead. While I won't deny that political factors had a lot to do with converting these lines to bus, I'm not sure that they would have lasted much longer as streetcar routes than they did.
Streetcar lines were often abandoned because they simply did not make economic sense when a great majority of the local trips in the community were by private car, and they would not make economic sense today. (Special cases as a fun drawer to retail neighborhoods are exceptions.) But Flatbush Avenue and Nortons Point, Brooklyn, 42nd Street and Broadway-42nd Street Manhattan, Woodward Avenue and Michigan-Grand in Detroit, and most of Capitol Transit, were bussed because of non-economic political considerations and should have remained streetcar. Canal Street, New Orleans was another and has been restored. The streetcar and light rail lines being built today are in an environment where the bus and auto are mature technologies and economies, and thus they should last, unless teleportation or something similar is developed!
IMHO any transit whether it be bus, street car, electric bus, light rail, commuter rail, is the ability to provide reliable - constant time service at all times of the day.
When there is the ability to run different length trains using the same operator for a full day's pay then many economies of scale are then available.
Ex . If in the morning an operator can run a three car train into the employment center leave 2 cars go back out to the end of the line then couple up and bring in 3 cars again the wear and tear on the cars is reduced + less energy used. This is somewhat the way Portland was in the past although I have no idea what the situation is now.
Late in the evening , overnight, early morning, a shorter car compatible with longer cars can be operated. Again operator gets a full single shift work day. This type operation allows for memory schedules which will attract some additional passengers.
The problem of down town parking, end of line maintenance facilities is not easily resolved especially in very extreme weather locations.
BroadwayLion The REAL difference, According to LION is commitment. Beese come and go, like putting your hand in a pail of water. Pull it out and leaves no trace in the water. Such are the beese. A street car demonstrates commitment to a community: It is going to stay there, and the city/county that put it there has a continuing interest in "there", wherever there is. This in turn increases property values. Stick you hand in a can of Crisco: the impression remains, everybody can see that your hand was there. Such is a streetcar line. ROAR
The REAL difference, According to LION is commitment.
Beese come and go, like putting your hand in a pail of water. Pull it out and leaves no trace in the water. Such are the beese.
A street car demonstrates commitment to a community: It is going to stay there, and the city/county that put it there has a continuing interest in "there", wherever there is. This in turn increases property values. Stick you hand in a can of Crisco: the impression remains, everybody can see that your hand was there.
Such is a streetcar line.
ROAR
The few "streetcar" lines (as opposed to LRT lines) that still exist today may be somewhat more resilient that the rest of the industry was, particularly those that fill an important tourist function (e.g., San Francisco, New Orleans). Also, government being what it is, once a government agency has spent a bundle to build a streetcar line, they are unlikely to discontinue service in the short term. The long term, however, may be a different story, as ridership patterns change and the line requires additional investment to remain in service. Recall that the Detroit heritage streetcar line - one of the things that was supposed to "save" downtown Detroit - was abandoned when the track required reconstruction.
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
An example is Portland, OR. Compare MAX with the streetcar, MAX has higher speeds, dedicated lanes, private ROWs, and a tunnel, all of which the streetcar lacks.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.